Gailon
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Gailon
-
-
2 hours ago, Ferban said:
I think it is notable. But I'm taking it to mean that there are few changes in the Shooting Phase so the article wouldn't have much to say. Probably sticking with true line of sight, etc.
Maybe they'll do an article on the new terrain module and shooting will get covered within that. If they talk about "Obscuring" or "Covering" terrain, that might be the needed hook to talk about the (presumably) minor changes to shooting.
Terrain rules have the potential to have the largest impact on shooting. That and the warscrolls themselves.
would love to see line of sight blocking terrain that actually blocks line of sight.
-
I thought the heroic action fight at the opening helped a bit.
making foot heroes more powerful is really difficult from a balance perspective. If they can just flatten a unit that is way too much. Why take units? Especially with army construction limitations gone.
fight at the opening gave some real interesting utility to these heroes. They could fight in the hero phase for a real by relatively minor resource (heroic action). And there were several times it was critical In my games. Mostly against the Tyrant.
it also felt flavorful. The heroes weren’t suddenly doing tons of damage but being in a combat with them was dangerous.
-
16 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
As the double turn currently is, I don’t like it.
personally I have heard of so many people stating that it has a some what in depth tactic, yet I haven’t seen a single person ever taking the consideration of just not taking the double turn when it happened.
this is the case for both casual and tournament level play I have seen, taken part in and witnessed.
Currently as it stands, there is no incentive of just not taking the double turn.
the benefits of taking it are much greater then thr negatives it comes with.
This perspective I hear a lot and it’s just inexplicable to me. The priority adds variance that requires thought.
My last game encapsulates the situation with the priority I see in almost all my games. My opponent went first and in my first turn I needed to go in a way where I was prepared from him to go next (nothing crazy, that’s just you to I go). So I went forward, had screens and was careful.
I won priority and did not take the double. It would have been a bad decision. I gave away the turn. Now he has to take his turn aware that I could double. He plays carefully. We actually played the entire game ‘you go I go’ but the priority roll impacted the decisions we were making in an interesting way.
The more I play the more the priority roll has more of an impact when it isn’t resulting in a double turn.
priority definitely still decides outcomes of games. But when doing a post mortem on a game I can almost always point to several other rolls that had just as big a potential impact. (Like that last game I rolled a crazy armor save right out the gate that had more impact on the outcome than any of the priority rolls)
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, Flippy said:
Your approach seems to be mainly on the game as a mechanism, i.e. the internal gears, how they work and how the result (scoring) is determined. Nothing wrong with this per se, but this approach can easily lead to a disconnection between what's happening on the table and how you should act to win the game (or how the winner is determined). Wrapping the game around the priority roll (as you said, it must be considered in the listbuilding stage already) and then using abstract points to balance everything out makes the experience.... weird, I guess? Like, my army got slaughtered but I still won on points. Hooray?
I don't know how to explain this properly, but when we play AoS and the kids come to check who's winning they examine the table, not a scoring sheet - a very intuitive approach in a wargame but not very accurate for AoS.
That’s an interesting point. I can say that this is one of the main things that attracted me to the game. And maintains enjoyment. It makes the game have a more tactical feel to it for me. Killing my opponent is not enough. And I frequently have to weigh killing and scoring.
I have a distinct memory of a couple games against the friend who taught me the game. Early into learning when I was just starting. I tabled him with most of my army alive in both games. And lost both. I found that really interesting and realized this game had some strange depth in its variance.
I also liked that it can sometimes gives the person who loses or is losing a fun game experience. In those games that I lost I wasn’t just getting kicked around for 3 hours.
sometimes you do just get kicked around, but sometimes you ‘lose’ but still have a winning look on the table. That’s something I find interesting.
but I have to admit it is ‘gamey’ and artificial. Trickier from a narrative perspective.
-
1
-
-
I also like generic good vs evil looking factions. But I’m ready for CoS to be in a starter. This seemed like the release for it too.
I play Stormcast as one of my armies and it’s too much. Although I do think their design in 3e was really good for a starter or beginner faction.
-
12 hours ago, Sception said:
This is an important point, and highlights that GW asking the most experienced players for feedback might be the wrong strategy entirely. Those players are already locked in with big expensive collections, you'd have to ****** up the new edition /incredibly hard/ to drive them away. Making the game more welcoming to new & inexperienced players specifically, even at the cost of established players, might have been the better call.
Though they're not ignoring the new player experience. Again, still crossing my fingers hard that GW's devs learned enough from combat patrol for spearhead to be more successful.
But this also doesn’t consider how important these players are to get new players. My friend and I who play once a week and sometimes twice recruit people into the game we love all the time.
without us no one is getting these people to play Warhammer. We have recruited about 6 people into playing occasionally.
we love the double turn. I find it essential to keeping the game interesting and random and constantly challenging.
double turn is a barrier to many new players (it was for me), but assuming the ‘whales’ of the game love it, that also helps get new players.
It’s true we are incredibly unlikely to just stop. But we could easily slip away to play a few times a year, and in that case stop recruiting entirely.
-
4
-
-
On 3/24/2024 at 9:46 AM, Skreech Verminking said:
What predictions?
I never gave up after loosing a double turn I just haven’t seen anybody not take the double turn.
as for the discussion I had with my opponent.
he thought the same way telling me that there is a strategic reason one shouldn’t take the double turn. Only admitting afterwards that if he took it the game would have ended turn 2 anyways
That may be a prediction but that was the discussion I had with an opponent, not my own prediction
although prediction might be to far fetched considering its what he believed the outcome to have been, if he chose not to show me the supposedly strategic genius behind the “not taking the double turn idea”
considering that we weren’t looking into
The future but rather into the result of a possible outcome, if we would have chosen to take the other path
The prediction I meant is the prediction that he would have wiped the table with you by taking the turn. It can definitely happen, but I just meant even really experienced people can be wrong when making predictions like this.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
This is something I have also recently been feeling pretty strongly. I have had a lot of games that looked pretty one-sided at the end of battle round 2, but turned out to be quite close after all 5 rounds.
I have also not had a game that was decided by a double turn in at least half a year. The possibility of a double turn is very impactful, for sure. It changes the dynamic on wanting to go first or second, how you deploy, how deeply you commit your units etc. In that way, even if both players take the double turn whenever they are able, it is still strategically interesting, because it influences everything from list building to tactical gameplay. But I find that a double turn happening rarely decides games by itself.
Playing more often I find that the round 5 priority is the one that most often decides games. Not because of a double turn that kills your opponent but because of some cheeky scoring one player or the other can do by sneaking onto an objective or getting a specific tactic.
-
7 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
I can only talk from my experience, but I had the same discussion with another guy, who chose. Ot to take the double at the end of the first battle round.
after we finished our session he admitted that the game would have ended if he took it, with a full annihilation on my side.
So that’s probably the closest I got to the so theorized tactical decision of not taking the double turn.
We can all only speak to our experience. But I have seen predictions like this be wrong many many times. Many times players thinking ‘this turn roll decides the game’ only to get to the end of the round and say ‘ok, now this roll decides the game.’
my personally theory is that playing ‘margin matters’ games can really open players up to these realizations. The high level competitive players who play teams tournaments see this regularly. It means that how many points you win or lose by matter doesn’t your team. So games are played to the end. Without just being discouraged with the ‘I lost, let’s just pick them all up.’
for me when I started playing margin matters I started to see how close games can be. And the choices I made that had nothing to do with who won the turn roll that could have changed the outcome.
Now I’d say that my turn rolls genuinely fall into three categories that happen in about even amount. I want to win to take the turn, I want to win to give the turn away, and I want to lose because I genuinely can’t tell whether to take it or give it away and I’d rather force my friend to make to the choice.
-
1
-
-
On 3/22/2024 at 10:35 AM, Skreech Verminking said:
I’ve played a lot of games in aos.
i’ve heard of so many people that it has a tactical meaning behind it, yet every game I so far had (and believe me I’ve played against tournament players, i take part at events or have at least so this is definitely not a part of the fame I’m lacking in) I haven’t yet once seen that so called tactical thinking people claim it has. If you get the double turn you just take it.
sure an army that is currently having a disadvantage could maybe keep up with the currently more powerful army if it gets that double turn, yet from the few hundred of games I have seen, this came up once.
if an army that is already a lot stronger then you gets the double turn. You can just stop playing. Even tournament players struggle against an army that is stronger than theirs if it gets a double turn.
Personally I’m not a fan of the double turn as it currently stands.
There’s no real flaw-back for taking the double turn Or a reason to ignore it.
and as long as that’s the case I don’t believe the double turn is a great part of the game.
does this mean the double turn should go?
well as ling as it give the player taking the double turn no disadvantage I think its something that should be just ignored.
But considering what gw wrote, I’ll wait till I have seen the new glorious or devilish plan-sheme gw has for the double turn in 4.0.
This baffles me. This is certainly a common sentiment but it is so far from my experience. the double turn is a risk management component. It adds variability and unpredictability that requires thought.
there are many many times when people don’t take the double. Especially the double from 1 into 2. Because someone can plan against it. One of the costs is also the risk of getting doubled in return. Playing in the top of a round is a different way to play in the bottom. It adds depth to have different considerations.
I also like that it does add increased variability. I don’t want to play chess.
I really like watching Season of War because I feel like it really shows this in action. Turns given away, and surprises and swinging in games.
-
2
-
-
The more I play the more I appreciate the ‘double turn.’ Although most of the time in my games now it isn’t a double turn because we give the turn away. This is because we have learned to play with the priority roll in mind and don’t just push everything forward like we did when first learning.
the mechanic has added enormous depth to learning the game. But I definitely agree that it adds variance. I think that’s a feature, not a bug.
i don’t like chess *because* it’s balanced and stressful. Each position has a ‘right’ answer. I would lose 100/100 games against an IM.
The priority adds a high point of variance in the games. There is a lot to do to play around it and play into it, but it is also front and center reminder that this is a dice game for fun. A lot of people who say that it keeps them from playing seem to think that without it they would win more. If wanting to win all your games because you are the best tactician keeps you playing 40k instead of AoS then I think that’s a good thing. AoS definitely had a better reputation for its culture. Some of that is fending off the try hards.
as for the waiting through two turns. I guess I’m always consumed by the game that it never really bothers me. What my opponent is doing and why is interesting to me. Planning my potential actions on my turn takes plenty of thought for me.
but i am in a streak of super fun games recently. Seems like every game I’m playing is down to the wire and interesting. I do credit a local meta with minimum shooting and mortal wound spam.
-
7
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Take in mind that Nagash can't use the new spell lore, it's only for Andtorian Locus. But, for whatever reason, he can still use Primal dice.
And cogs don’t reroll. Won’t he be really vulnerable to a miss cast?
feels like Khorne is a big winner here? Hexgorger skulls will wreak and using blood tithe for an auto unbind on some of these spells could be huge.
-
On 4/30/2023 at 8:04 AM, Kitsumy said:
i dont know why people need to play games before knowing if something is good or bad. reading rules and scrolls with points you allready knows what will npbe bad/good/ playable.
only way to play will be koatl with block of saurus buffed up and maybe some melee chickens.like i previously said.
then kroak may be ok, good, or even op, magic isnt so easy to math up.
agradons are absurdly useless. they are made to be in combat but save like light cavalry, dont have any healing etc. for 20points more you have vampire cavalry.... that do cloose to double dmg, has more wounds, better save, better move, better bravery, do mortals, can healthemselves etc etc. still dreaming about faq upgrading them to 3armor and changing his ability to dont dissapear if not in combat, and getting points on every charge....
the math on agradons is so bad. And their ability… I don’t even understand writing that ability. I assume it was something good and in ply testing was too strong so they cut it to this?
I really doubt they will FAQ the rules on them though. Best we can hope for is significant point drops. But it’s too bad. Points won’t make them into Varanguard, it will just make them spammable.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Kitsumy said:
per examble how my brain see scrolls.
20 saurus do 34 dmg vs a 4+ save, being in galletians, with all atack, chargin in koatl, slann casting rend spell and skink mortals buff.
so 400points + 400points behind buffing them. seems prety nice eh
but them you compare them to another infantry unit with similar move atacks etc like grave guard. 30 grave guard not nedding being in galletian only needing a vampire cloose for aura, cant fail anything. and only needing all out atack. will do 35,6 dmg.... not counting smaller bases making everything easier, or necro making them fight again on hero phase or getting tons of models revived every turn, and half unit revived once etc etc. so:
20 saurus do 34dmg vs 4armor for 400p+400p buffing them
30 grave guard do 35.6 for 420p+140p buffing them
or 41,3 dmg if u add velladama spell, rounding it up to same seraphon combo points
fast glimpse see how much better skellys are even being a revived unit, yes has less wound and armor save, but with death ward and multiples revives they are even thoughter. and still vampires and graveguard arent one of the best books. and that saurus tactic is the best one in all book besides kroak mw spam, and it is inferior to only one of the multiples combos in a okish book as soulblight.
still i can sound harsh, because is internet, but it isnt so bad. like i said im sure book will be lower part of middle tier, with even some lucky tourney wins. after some years being on top was obvious we would get this. miniatures are amazing thats most important,and book is fun and good enough for casual games to be fairs and fun.
and it could even be totally op toptier if kroak combo proves to be too strong. but it would be only 1 miniature, not real state of whole book
So 35.6 damage for 560 points for grave guard? I think a lot of things in Seraphon do more damage than that per point. It’s true it’s harder to put into one giant block. But that seems healthier for the game to me.
-
I don’t see that Saurus are damage dealers. They are chaos warriors. You can buff them up to do damage, but they can get take objectives with a 3+ save and damage reduction. If you want to compare the buffs you can put on them it should be defensive.
-1 to hit, negate rend etc.
I think agrodons and kroxigor are meant to deal the damage. That’s where the comparison should be for points cost to other hammers. Of course they also have built in damage reduction.
I agree the book definitely lacks damage. Besides troglodon/Kroak missile it looks mid tier. (And even that is countered pretty hard by nighthaunt, Fyreslayers and potentially khorne?)
but mid tier is good. The coalesced side of the army seems to have a lot of similarities to StD. Do medium damage with nice defensive buffs. But we have access to support shooting.
-
4
-
-
42 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
So 12d3 mortals to one unit.
or are we talking to multiple units?
It will be 1d3 to three different units 4 times. So up to 4d3 to a single unit. Could add realmshaper engine to that if they are near terrain. Could add a Slann for comets call. But that is a ton of points on wizards. Would be completely relying on getting the spells cast in order to summon.
-
1 hour ago, Kitsumy said:
yes i think you can do it, and of course wouldnt be fun, but not sure if it would be good enough for tourneys. since troglodon will die 100% on first oponnent turn after be teleported or in turn1 if you are against a strong shoting army. then all ur plans are ruined, and need like 1100points only on combo.
you can do it now, but only 3 casts and harder on following spells but with kroak having the +1 to cast of asterysm, and noone used it never despite people thinking about it on kroak release.
You can’t do it now because teleport is in movement phase. The key change is teleport in hero phase. It is a lot of points and may fail too often with spell shrugs and chance of miscast.
everything does just seem too expensive.
i do like the game going to something with more survivability. That isn’t just delete unit, delete unit, continue. It seems like they have been printing a lot more stuff that hits on 4’s.
The army seems to have good tricks and absolutely no damage at high points.
-
7 hours ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:
Unless I missed something or they errata it, that doesn't work until late engagement. The number of Endless Spells you can control is a separate rule from how many you can cast in a single turn. They total for each happens to be 1 by default, but increasing the first doesn't inherently increase the second.
I didn’t know that rule, but that does help make this a lot more reasonable.
Then here is my prediction for a npe combo. Is there something that prevents this from working?
Kroak and trogolodon. Teleport the troglodon as a heroic action up to the opponent army. Cast celestial deliverance 4 times at 18” range from the troglodon and +3 to cast (no rerolls though). Doing 12d3 mortal wounds. The troglodon can cast mystic shield on itself or it’s warscroll spell into the enemy army to potentially cut off runs.
if you double turn, do it again. If not use finest hour on the troglodon and it’s in their face at -1 to hit (with a roar to prevent aoa), 4+ save that can stack go to 0+ with stegadon helm, finest hour, mystic shield and aod. Could even cast the -1 to wound spell on him (giving up one celestial deliverance cast). I’m not saying it will survive a turn, but it will take a lot of the opponents energy to kill. So it’s not an all in on needing a double.
Does that work? That seems crushing into anything that doesn’t have inherent spell defense. And I’d still be happy trying it into Fyreslayers with a 4+ spell shrug aura. It might feed khorne a lot of blood tithe.
i don’t know. Seems to be potentially very oppressive.
-
3 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Personally as a non seraphon player I can say this much.
i really hated playing against the current seraphon book.
most of the time it was a struggle just trying to keep your heroes alive.
while this feature still seems to be a part of the seraphon, at least it is now as it seems kept to one subfaction while the other seems to have lost it.
which I guess will makes it a lot more pleasurable to fight them, at least one of the subfactions.
i’m also very happy to see that units like the bastialdon got a slight change in shooting, making it a less interesting yet still viable shooting options.
and last but mot least Saurus finally seem playable.
something on the other hand I still consider somewhat toxic is the fact that slann have an unlimited range of unbinding spell.
consider that they are often going around with a +1-3 to their unbinding roll (I might be wrong here though) just makes it unbearable to fight them with any kind of wizards.
The board wide unbind is definitely a npe for a lot of people. But they did remove the astrolism, so as I am reading it it will only be a +1 (+2 for kroak).
-
Arcane Might command trait on the Starborne Slann seems like it could be really strong. Unfortunately we can’t take ixti grubs for a reroll
But an 8” range endless spell goes to 22” with arcane might and astrolith bearer. Then 8” movement for 30” threat range. Dropping 3 endless spells 30” across the table on turn 1 could really wreck havoc.
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:
and engine of gods isnt priest neither. so lost every priest on army.
wtf saurus getting his points doubled???
and troglodon keeping his joke high points. or solar engine keeping his absurded cost too when im totally sure we will loose the fire 2 times things. that keep him cloose to balanced before.
those points are enforcing my prior fears about gw doing his typical thing on a "op" book at the time....
I think the Saurus points confirms that they will be two wounds. Keeping then at 10 points a wound.
So many mothballed units is a bit of a bummer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Overread said:
Not only does it work, if memory serves me it works REALLY well
This is how they justify skinks with -3 rend . . . /s
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Causalis said:
It's... literally an ability on their warscroll?
As for potential nerfs:
Skragrott will probably go up in points, which is fine. But I worry that GW will nerf the Squig Herd. They are fine in my opinion. They have very clear weaknesses (Bravery 3, no commands, 6+ save, only hit on 4+, no reliable movement). So the moment they get charged, they'll just evaporate. They've got a high volume of attacks and good support synergie but so do other armies (Mortek Guard, With Aelves, Corsairs etc.) and we don't see them getting nerfed.
We shall see in gameplay but I think it’s the range on the mortal wounds when they run that makes them a bit oppressive. You can charge them in, do damage, die and then run and pop a support a hero that was well behind enemy screens. If that ability was 3” I think people would be a lot less concerned about herd.
-
Gitz are so good right now it’s pretty crazy. The nerfs are going to come quick. I suspect in both FAQ’s and points. Hopefully the points won’t be too bad, I think there are some very reasonable FAQ changes that could come (multiple gobbapalooza, rallying them on 4+), but it’s fun to play with a lot of toys and points could cut that off.
for some of the discussion here, I’d suggest people should not underestimate stabbas. Rolling up and taking an objective from 9” away is amazing. A block of 40 is very difficult to remove and will hang onto an objective quite stubbornly. It’s a high value for 250 points, even if it can’t kill anything.
-
1
-
You can change ONE thing BUT…
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Path to glory support in the app